From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261160AbVFCWqM (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:46:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261164AbVFCWqM (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:46:12 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:3482 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261160AbVFCWqG (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:46:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:45:51 -0700 From: Greg KH To: tom.l.nguyen@intel.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, roland@topspin.com, davem@davemloft.net Subject: pci_enable_msi() for everyone? Message-ID: <20050603224551.GA10014@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In talking with a few people about the MSI kernel code, they asked why we can't just do the pci_enable_msi() call for every pci device in the system (at somewhere like pci_enable_device() time or so). That would let all drivers and devices get the MSI functionality without changing their code, and probably make the api a whole lot simpler. Now I know the e1000 driver would have to specifically disable MSI for some of their broken versions, and possibly some other drivers might need this, but the downside seems quite small. Or am I missing something pretty obvious here? thanks, greg k-h